Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN l&q 89, 1939 Hon. ?%rks Z. :.'cElchael, ?.!a~ 29, 1939, Page 2 or vote for, or ooafimi the appointment to ady office, pooslt.S%m, olerkehlp, esuploymont or duty, of any person related within the seocmd degree by aitinlty or within the third deffreeby oonsangutnltyto tho person so ep- pointin& or so voting, or to any other mew ber of eny such board, the Legislature,or court of whioh suoh person so appointiq ar VOti~8iay be (Lrsmber. when the 663tUFy, fees, or ooqmmatian af uuoh appointee la to be paid for dlmtly or .ipdireatly out 4f or from pabiio ihaas 4r r486 of ofdoe 4fanykbdaroberaoterwbat6o8ver."~ &Mole so1)8,i?e~%fmiI Qlrll statutes of ?exa8, lnp4ut,mdse8follous:, . sa idapplbetlan a h & ble la o o a p a deb bf astatmm%t eaaringlih6prc+b6blwre66lpfrr fZB8 f6fB6,OU6d66iOM rad Ow tiantth b oolleotedby said dfY%oo dB the f&m&l’ year and the probabls dl6bur6me r&h&oh shall fnOhide f&l 6ehdeS Md e.xpeMe6 Of Se&d offloe; and said oorrrt &ml& make its ‘order atihorizlng ~the appo&ntroont’of 6-h &putle``~ assistan end olerhr and flrtbe otn7onsatfua to be paid theu ulthia the Ua&ation% herein prescribedam bet- tba noabartobe appoInted a6 In ,thaQisoretion of said wvurt Hon. Farke E. l:W:ichael, Way 29, 1939, Pege 3 horef.nefteraet out. The oompeneetlonwhich say be ollo3wd to the awputiea,aaoistmts or alarks above named for their 5omico6 shell be a reasonable one, nat toeeroeed the rollouingtXUOUU&6t.r..* Thiede``~+~&heere``ruledthetti. appolntnentof a relative of the ocul66lo``~rs*aourt b7 another oounty otiiaer as a deputy is uot in violatlgn of ths pepotleeileu and that the feot thet the,a&eioneret ootmt sets the ntimberof deQutl66 to be appointed does uoteaouuttoa aonflmmti~ofth~aypoinWatt. On Februa~ 9, 1938, tbi6 eu 0phla0 by HOD. R. 0, Wat4r6, eml, that it was not a .tloletloa4f. the aepot%a. a tp xo ellea to l rgpoiut a6 hlr Msbtent 4r d6putr.a- 6en of a aouuty aadeelener after the ocml6slonar6 eoPrt~druthoriedlthsappolotPsnf~of~h6``7 in laoordauoewith Artl6le %9OS, R-4 Civil 8tatUte6 of Tew. OnIkroh 6, l%S,'thl6 depu'tamittheldin~6iL oplnloa by ROD. 0. a Kennedy; Ibsl6t6ut Attorney (knanl, ~ad~y~eriiiib616aiirot.ocwsinoimcbth4 %ia&er6 ot the Od66iC6W2’6’ oourt utdd not be ~X'Ohibited~ fmsaser ving as suo ha r dlb h is lppolotaeat bythe 6h6rlff +10&tethet6m6 of *lole4SS,F6a6l CodeofTexu,or the allomuae of hle'eelery by the oaral8eioaere*court ooastltutea vlolatlon oi such nep6t&66 Zaw boaau6e the oomtqlssldnere*court did not eppolnt or rote for or aontirm Ti,,nt of ey,dsputy ahsrlff. On September 21, 1935; this dewmtment held in au opinion by Hon. Joe J. Aleup, Aesletant Attorney General, that a perwh related to $ho oounty judge in the prohlbf- tive degree mar serve a8 deputy clerk end the faat that Hon. Parks 6. FoC'ichael, By 29, 1939, Page 4 the cat-z&?isloners* ocurt sets the number of Geputles to be aprointcddoes not amount to a conflrrmtlon. This dwpartmenthold on Eeaember29% 1936, in en oplnicn by Ron. Wllllem ``oCrew,Attorney &mere1 of Texea, that the erpointnwntof an uncle of one of the zmzbcre of tho ccumlsslcneretocurt a8 e:mistant dl?frict attannepwns not a violation of tha nepotieni 1s~;cf tlw state of Texas. On Jul7 6, 1939, thie departwait held in an oplnlon by Ilan.Ji H. Broedhuret,Aselstent. Attoraa General, that eppolntmentof a relative of the OC6I&6lOU~ arat ocurt by another oount7 aiiloer ee a deput7na not in vlolatlon of tlb8nepotism 3aw. U&rtheprmUlans ofhrtloleS902, Revleed Civil Statutes the crow&y ortioer dealrIng deputlea, make8 ~tbeap&etlon outlined lq slad .ertioleg thh ; eommbalonirrs* oourt for the authorrlty fo dept 166. The ocamls614amrs*wurt graat6Fit to appoint to the oYfiaV aul seta.the aa&r7 ba@m' appointmentis mida. Tbb~eOImitWIi0WT8'OQU&h6a6 authorityto attempt to dealguete whcenthe offloor ahell &TO: end is apeoIfieallyforbidden to do w'b7 thle 9%eocsim%aelonwa~aourt dcesnoteellrirrtge appaiu&. IBanallerto7ollrrirlwtqtraa%lan,Jou~irera- 6peotfullyadvl6edth6t it is the api6bn ofthi6bp6rt- rent that it la aat a vloletlfm0r the wpotlm law for the dletrlat olerk to appoint a deput7 dlstrlot alerk who if3a sister of the eating eqmty judge ab the eount7. You are furtherreapeatful37advlaedthet It iethe apin- ion of this departmentthat in aueh @easethe eomlaslonera* aourt does not ocnflrm the appolntetent. Bllthrer'erenoeto pour second questlonifou ere respeotfullyadvlsad that this departwnt hes repeatddl.7 ruled thvt relatlcnshlpby aff'inityInaludes only the re- letlonshlpof the husband to his wire's blood kindred or !lon.%x-k6 E. ~?clr'lohasl,'May 29, 1939, Page 5 relntiviskip cf the w;ifeto the hur;bcnd*n blood kindred, cm? that.person related only by affinity tc the hus- bbnd are net related to the wife and vioe.versa phrsons reInted only by ailinity to the wife are not reiatcd to thr:husband. We respectiullyrerer you to the opinion of this department.written February 16, 1918, by &xi. c. A. Lwoeten,AssistantAttorney General. kffinity is the tie wl&h exists between one member of'a marriage and the blood relations oi the other member; it arlsee in aonsequenoa0S a marriage. 8 W fur., 300.40. i There i8 no atrinlty botwoon the nlibrunof both the husbandandrlra, such aa abrottir M$&hu6- baaa and a .alstorai the wlfk T%la is tor&kd?bythe the wife of litigant*88Qn lma not related'bydwnlty, to the tit&at ts .alnqllalUyliiafrom sitting in the bBUB9. lUlllam~ ~6. Fr#tSr, 2SS SW lZOT On SeptaOmr 26,1998, this deparkarat lmM in anoplnlonby Hod, R. f.Oray. Assistant Attorney General, that a dlstriat olork oould not employ amhi deputy the wife of hip wife.8 fatbe, aaid wife not kirig the mother of the We of the dlstrlot olerk, and would be in the prohfbltivodegree mad the same affective re- latlmshlp by.nW3,nit.y:l'hlsopinion is hersby axprom- ly overruledand vithdrrrro, You are therefore respectfully adrise that in answer to your stoond question it.is the opinion of this departmentthat-the dlatrfot clerk ia not related by affinity to h1.es8ep-mother-in-law. You are Surthorre- epeotrullyadvised that it la the opinion of this depnrt- sent that the difstriatolerk would not violate the nepotism the 1~ in en?loying MS mid stop-mthcr-in-law as his a.cpty. 2ustin!- that tI?lsnnfiwersyear inquiry, we are Very truly yours